Full Text
Date of Decision: 16.01.2020.
SOHAN SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Tarique Siddiqui, Mr. Sanjeev K.
Balyan and Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, Advocates.
Through: Mr. D.D. Singh and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocates for R-1.
JUDGMENT
1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 371 days in filing of the appeal.
2. The appellant states that since the progress of the case was not informed to him and he did not know about the final order, he has proceeded against the lawyer whom he had engaged to defend his interests before the learned MACT II, South District Saket Courts, in claim petition NO. 139/2013. There was default in appearance by his earlier lawyer before the learned Tribunal on 24.09.2013 and 17.10.2013, which was unknown to 2020:DHC:302 him. He came to know about the result of the proceedings only when notice of execution proceedings was served upon him around September 2014. He applied for a certified copy of the award. Meanwhile, this Court had passed its order on 08.11.2013 in CM (M). 1113/2013 transferring the claim petition to the learned MACT at Patiala House. In a little while thereafter appellant’s mother became incapacitated because of a serious illness and the applicant became fully preoccupied with her treatment.
3. The claim petitions had been filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is a socially beneficial legislation which is meant for the benefit of persons aggrieved by motor vehicular accidents. The rashness and negligence in driving of the vehicle has to be proven for grant of any compensation under such proceedings. A liberal approach is required to be taken apropos filing of such claim petitions because people in the unorganized sector are often ill-equipped about the mechanism and procedures of these proceedings. The same would be the case of persons who are not wholly literate like the driver and owner of the vehicle as in the present case. The Court is of the view that the facts of the case are such that not condoning the delay would result in miscarriage of justice
4. In the circumstances, the delay is condoned, subject to the appellant paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the insurance company as costs and planting of 50 trees at the ‘Insaaf Bagh’ area of Central Ridge. The appellant shall appear before the DCF (South) on 31.01.2020, who shall indicate to him, the forest lands under his care where the trees shall be planted. The trees shall be of deciduous indigenous variety and they shall have a nursery age of three and a half years and shall have a minimum height of at least six feet.
5. The appellant will be free to water the trees for the next six months. Water will be supplied by the Forest Department, GNCTD. Depending upon the soil type and topography, the DCF may consider the following types of trees for plantation:-
(i) Gular (Cluster Fig) (ii) Kadamba (Burflower Tree)
(iii) Pilkhan (White Fig) (iv) Jaamun (Black Plum)
(v) Bargad (Banyan Tree) (vi) Mango
(vii) Amaltas (Golden Shower) (viii) Mahua (Butter Tree)
(ix) Putranjiva (x) Badh
(xi) Sagwan (Teak Wood) (xii) Safed Siris (Albizia
(xiii) Kala Siris (xiv) Anjeer
(xv) Kathal- Jackfruit (xvi) Palash
(xvii) Arni (xviii) Bistendu
(xix) Rohida (xx) Medshingi
(xxi) Palash/Tesu/Dhak (xxii) Hingot
(xxiii) Ronjh (xxiv) Khejri
6. Compliance Report, alongwith photographs, shall be filed both by the appellant and the DCF before the next date.
7. List for compliance on 16.03.2020.
8. The application is disposed-off in terms of the above. MAC.APP. 206/2015 & CM APPL. 3600/2015
9. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 06.11.2013 passed by the learned MACT in Petition No. 139/13 (Unique case ID: 02403C0025352009), which has granted recovery rights to the insurer against the owner of the vehicle. It is the appellant’s case that two claim petitions have been filed before two different MACTs apropos two fatalities resulting from the same motor vehicular accident.
10. The owner of the vehicle had filed a petition before this Court on 29.01.2013, seeking clubbing of the two cases to be tried before one learned Tribunal. The relief was granted by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2013. It was directed that the two claim petitions were to be tried and the final order was to be passed by the learned MACT at Patiala House Court. However, before the said order could be intimated to the learned Tribunal at South District Saket Courts, the latter had already awarded the compensation and granted recovery rights against the owner of the vehicle to the insurance company. The same would have to be put in abeyance, in view of the fact that this Court’s order needs to be given effect to, as the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said claim petition already stood transferred to the MACT at Patiala House. Interestingly, the latter, in the same set of circumstances, awarded compensation but no recovery rights to the insurance company. It held that the owner of the vehicle was not liable to any compensation. It declined the insurer’s plea of rights of recovery because the contention of the vehicle owner was accepted, that he had tested the skills of the prospective driver before employing him in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lehru & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1292 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Co., (2013) 10 SCC 217, wherein the owner of the vehicle is required to first ascertain whether, ex facie, the driving licence produced by the prospective driver, appeared to be valid and that he had tested the driving skills of the driver and satisfied himself of his competence before engaging him. In the circumstances, the benefit of Lehru (supra) and Pepsu (supra) will extend to the owner of the vehicle.
11. The Court is of the view that one learned Tribunal, before whom the appellant/owner’s evidence in this regard was led, has on such basis held that the appellant would not be liable to pay any third party compensation but the other learned Tribunal has decided otherwise, and held him liable to indemnify the losses in the absence of, similar evidence being led by the owner of the vehicle, because his lawyer before the latter Tribunal did not represent him fully and diligently. In the circumstances, it will be fair that the appellant be permitted to lead evidence with respect to claim petition NO. 139/2013, (Unique case ID: 02403C0025352009), which would be heard and disposed-off apropos the rights of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle. For this purpose, the case is remanded to the learned MACT at Patiala House Court, where the parties shall appear on 07.02.2020.
12. The learned counsel for the parties submits that they would request the learned MACT to dispose-off the case within a period of four months therefrom and that they will not seek any adjournments in the matter.
13. The appeal is disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J JANUARY 16, 2020 AB